Learning More About How Dues Paid To Big Labor Are Spent

One of the more interesting informational black holes has always been the forced payment of dues by union members and exactly what those funds were then spent on by the union.
Thanks to some new reporting requirements that kick in this summer, we are about to get the first real glimpse into what is going on with the millions and millions of dollars paid in union dues.


The Wall Street Journal recently published this editorial on Big Labor’s upcoming new reporting requirements:

Among the endless piles of paper that make up Washington, a new stack has been rising in a corner of the Department of Labor. But these forms, known as LM-2 disclosure reports, are actually news, especially if you’re a dues-paying union member.
The first George W. Bush Administration took a fresh look at the LM-2, which is supposed to reveal how unions spend member dues. The form had remained virtually unchanged since 1959, and today’s union leaders were required to provide only the barest details. So in 2004 the Labor Department began to require expanded forms and, while the filing requirement doesn’t officially kick in until this summer, a few early birds have started shipping their information.
Talk about eye-openers. Consider a LM-2 filed by a California local of the Communication Workers of America. While the union’s spending is fairly routine, its dues base certainly isn’t; 47% of its members are “agency fee payers.” In plain English, these are members who, exercising their right under the Supreme Court’s 1988 Beck decision, have withheld any dues that go to political or non-bargaining-related activity.
This suggests either that the members disagree with their leaders’ agenda, or resent their forced enrollment in the union in the first place. It is especially notable because a vote of only 50% of a union’s participants can oust the current leadership, or more drastically decertify the union altogether. Evidence of such disgruntlement in the ranks is exactly the sort of information that union chiefs would prefer to keep quiet.
The rank and file are also beginning to see a precise breakdown of how their money is spent. Prior to the new form, unions could lump millions into vague categories such as “overhead,” or the ever-favorite “other disbursements.” Unions must now account for dollars spent on anything from the grievance process to organizing to politics. This will help to keep leaders accountable and perhaps reduce such fraud as the officials of a Washington, D.C., teachers union who apparently bought mink coats and alligator shoes with dues money.
The forms will also shine a light on one of labor’s darkest, dampest, corners: trusts. These affiliates are barely regulated slush funds into which unions funnel dues and then spend at will. The Detroit Free Press ran articles in 2001 detailing three such funds that the United Auto Workers ostensibly set up to finance worker training but in fact were also used by the top brass to sponsor Nascar racing, host political parties and underwrite trips to Palm Springs. Under the new rules, unions will have to account for this trust spending.
The AFL-CIO has branded the new rule “anti-union” but it’s hard to see how. Unions exist to benefit their members, not their leaders. It’s especially odd to see AFL-CIO chief John Sweeney, who stumps for greater corporate disclosure, demanding that labor chieftains be exempt from comparable transparency. As it is, the new disclosure rules apply only to the largest unions, those with annual receipts over $250,000 (about 5,000 of 30,000 unions).
None of this has stopped the AFL-CIO from attempting to block the regulation in court on grounds that Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao lacks the authority to order such disclosure; a panel of appellate judges will rule on the case soon. Assuming Ms. Chao prevails, unions will begin delivering their first required reckonings this summer.

This upcoming, new information will clarify publicly the previously shielded money flows that have implemented the political agendas of Big Labor.
Transparency about dues monies will ensure greater accountability to union members and the taxpaying public. That can only help advance the cause of liberty in our country.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
3 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MM
MM
16 years ago

Many union members have not taken advantage of Beck because unions have simply refused to report detailed expenditures. This will almost certainly increase the numbers using Beck to minimize union dues that have traditionally been handed over to Democrat organizations. Looking forward to it.

Anchor Rising
15 years ago

Now Here is a Good Idea

This article, entitled California Union Blues: The Golden State’s unions fight to keep their members from controlling their own money, informs us about an issue that often gets limited public scrutiny: The leadership of California’s largest public labo…

Anchor Rising
15 years ago

Paycheck Protection: Cutting Union Political Spending Off at the Knees

What would you say if someone forcibly took a portion of your hard-earned monies and spent it on political actions that violated your personal beliefs? You would say you belonged to an American labor union. Building on this previous posting…

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.